Opinion | A contract of trust: how to stop the politicians from lying
From the US to Nigeria, academics and legislators themselves are rethinking iron-clad notions about freedom of speech
Local elections took place in Hong Kong earlier this month. With elections come the usual shenanigans. Wong Yuk-man changes his political stripes. Former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang calls on the government to restore trust in Legco’s politicians. Yet, with unlimited licence to lie, how can we trust our politicians?
We don’t. Recent surveys show that only 35 per cent of us trust the government – and 40 per cent of us actively distrust the government. Combating similar trends in the UK, a grass roots campaign there seeks to push through legislation outlawing parliamentarians’ lying.
Seventeen US states have passed legislation (so far still unconstitutionally) against lying about political rivals
Advanced democracies have been rue to regulate politicians’ speech. Yet, both academics and legislators themselves are rethinking the age-old iron-clad protection of free-for-all speech. Seventeen US states have passed legislation (so far still unconstitutionally) against lying about political rivals.
The EU – and countries from India to Nigeria – have adopted a code of conduct banning hate-speech. So far, the rules cover only the most egregious and demonstrably harmful political lying.
Yet, legal scholars’ main strategy for combating politician lying treats political speech as a contract. Hypothetically, fraud would occur if third parties could prove that Chan Ho-tin and the Hong Kong National Party disavowed Hong Kong’s independence as a ruse. Donald Trump could be censored for promising to build a wall between the US and Mexico that he darn well knew was illegal.
European nationalists provide an even easier test case. Their promise to throw out certain minorities violates the EU Treaty and other obligations. They know full well they seek voter support for the illegal and unconstitutional.